Techdirt. Stories filed under "muslims"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "muslims"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:48:01 PDTJudge Says NYPD 'Accustomed To Disregarding' Court Orders, Sends Surveillance Settlement Back For FixesTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161102/09532835945/judge-says-nypd-accustomed-to-disregarding-court-orders-sends-surveillance-settlement-back-fixes.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161102/09532835945/judge-says-nypd-accustomed-to-disregarding-court-orders-sends-surveillance-settlement-back-fixes.shtml
A settlement reached this earlier this year over the NYPD's pervasive (and useless) surveillance of Muslims is being sent back for retooling. Normally when this sort of thing happens, it's because the the NYPD is convinced any reform efforts put in place are too restrictive and will result in the city being plunged into the nightmarish dystopian hell it's often been portrayed as in popular culture.

[Judge] Charles S. Haight Jr., in an opinion published on Monday, said the settlement did not go far enough for an agency that had become “accustomed to disregarding” court orders.

“The proposed role and powers of the civilian representative,” Judge Haight wrote, “do not furnish sufficient protection from potential violations of the constitutional rights of those law-abiding Muslims and believers in Islam who live, move and have their being in this city.”

Playing into the judge's decision is a recent NYPD Inspector General's report -- one that found the department routinely violated another agreement it had in place, one that ALSO resulted from pervasive, unconstitutional surveillance.

The Handschu Agreement -- put in place in 1985 and modified in 2002 -- was supposed to stop the NYPD from engaging in surveillance of First Amendment-protected activity. Of course, it ignored this agreement and placed entire mosques under surveillance with its "Demographics Unit" and used copy-pasted boilerplate to excuse its actions.

So, when Judge Haight says the NYPD is "accustomed to disregarding" court orders, he not making stuff up. More recent agreements -- like the changes made to stop-and-frisk as the result of court decision -- have also been ignored, with NYPD brass making very minimal effort to ensure officers were following the new rules meant to make the stops more Constitutional.

Perhaps Judge Haight is belatedly trying to make amends. Haight is the reason the NYPD's rights-violating "Demographics Unit" even existed. In the wake of the 2001 attacks, the NYPD decided to put a couple of former CIA officers in charge of its counterterrorism activities, and it was Judge Haight who approved the post-9/11 rewrite of the Handschu Agreement, allowing the NYPD to engage in surveillance predicated on little else other than citizens' religious affiliations.

Fifteen years of watching the NYPD shrug off oversight, settlement agreements, and consent decrees has finally gotten to Judge Haight, apparently. While the NYPD somehow portrays the August Inspector General's report as exonerating, Haight calls it something else.

Judge Haight said it was evidence of “near-systemic failure.” He chastised the department for highlighting favorable aspects of the report but not addressing repeated problems.

There's not much of a sample size to pull from, but it's heartening to see that some judges are tiring of the self-serving BS served up by law enforcement agencies. Deference is usually extended because cops are the "good guys." The deference that has historically been extended is starting to be rolled back. Transparency and accountability -- forced on agencies by activists and citizens armed with recording devices -- has made it clear many officers and agencies haven't earned the respect that's been shown to them. Haight's refusal to be swayed by the same department that leveraged terrorism fears to undercut the civil rights New York's residents is a positive step in the right direction, if perhaps a bit late in arriving.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>belated-bench-slapshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20161102/09532835945Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:28:55 PDTInspector General Finds NYPD's Surveillance Of Muslims Routinely Violated Consent Decree GuidelinesTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160827/17531435367/inspector-general-finds-nypds-surveillance-muslims-routinely-violated-consent-decree-guidelines.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160827/17531435367/inspector-general-finds-nypds-surveillance-muslims-routinely-violated-consent-decree-guidelines.shtml
Following two lawsuits against the NYPD for its pervasive, rights-violating surveillance of the city's Muslims, the department's Inspector General took a look at a sampling of cases from 2010-2015 to see if the Handschu Agreement -- crafted in 1985 and heavily modified in 2002 -- was being followed. The short answer is "No." So is the long answer [PDF].

The guideline was part of a consent decree created in response to pervasive NYPD surveillance of activities protected by the First Amendment, even when no unlawful activity was suspected. The guideline worked for awhile, but the 9/11 attacks changed that. The NYPD brought in two former CIA employees who decided to turn a domestic law enforcement agency into Langley on the Hudson. Former CIA officer David Cohen used terrorism fears to compel a judge to significantly modify the Handschu Agreement.

From that point on, the NYPD steadily abused the revamped agreement. Its "Demographics Unit" designated entire mosques as terrorist entities, placed the city's Muslims under surveillance, and -- best of all -- generated zero leads.

The Inspector General's report points out that the NYPD couldn't even comply with the relaxed, post-9/11 Handschu Agreement. Instead, the Demographics Unit copy-pasted justifications for pervasive surveillance and passed them up the ladder to the rubber stamps handling the approval process.

OIG-NYPD’s investigation found that NYPD, while able to articulate a valid basis for commencing investigations, was often non-compliant with a number of the rules governing the conduct of these investigations. For example, when applying for permission to use an undercover officer or confidential informant, the application must state the particular role of the undercover in that specific investigation, so that the need for this intrusive technique can be evaluated. NYPD almost never included such a fact-specific discussion in its applications, but instead repeatedly used generic, boilerplate text to seek such permission. Tellingly, this boilerplate text was so routine that the same typographical error had been cut and pasted into virtually every application OIG-NYPD reviewed, going back over a decade.

The NYPD's response [PDF] to the report disputes the accusation of using boilerplate permission slips. But that's all it does. It fails to explain how each individual request somehow contained the same typographical error. Repeatedly. For fourteen years.

The NYPD disagrees with the Report’s characterization that the extensions of Preliminary Inquiries contain “boilerplate language.” To the contrary, extension requests include a full and detailed recitation of the key facts justifying investigation, including any new facts/updates learned since the investigation was opened. Often, the added facts learned since the opening of an investigation strengthen the original predicate.

Once an investigation was under way, NYPD supervisors tended to take a very hands-off approach.

Further, among all cases reviewed, NYPD continued its investigations even after legal authorization expired more than half of the time. Often more than a month of unauthorized investigation occurred before NYPD belatedly sought to renew the authorization.

As the IG points out, this is completely unacceptable. The Agreement is there for a reason: to prevent unlawful surveillance. But the NYPD is left alone to ensure its own compliance with the guideline. There's no judicial oversight of these activities -- not like there is with searches, seizures, and stops. Left to police itself, the NYPD proved unworthy of the trust placed in it.

These failures cannot be dismissed or minimized as paperwork or administrative errors. The very reason these rules were established was to mandate rigorous internal controls to ensure that investigations of political activity – which allow NYPD to intrude into the public and private aspects of people’s lives – were limited in time and scope and to ensure that constitutional rights were not threatened.

[...]

As a result, until OIG-NYPD conducted this review, there had never been any routine, independent third-party review to ensure compliance with these rules. NYPD's compliance failures demonstrate the need for ongoing oversight, which OIG-NYPD will now provide.

The NYPD's response admits as much, even as it challenges many of the Inspector General's recommendations. Since February 2002, the NYPD's Demographics Unit has been grading its own papers. A law enforcement hot take, written by a CIA officer and pushed past a local judge, has guided the NYPD for almost 15 years. What it's left behind is a long string of First and Fourth Amendment violations. What it hasn't left behind is a string of successful investigations. Or a coherent paper trail.

This is the NYPD in its own words, arguing with IG about the office's findings.

First, the NYPD didn't implement electronic tracking of its Demographics Unit cases until after it was already on the losing end of two civil rights lawsuits.

The Intelligence Bureau began discussing the development of an electronic case tracking system for Handschu investigations in February 2016 to assist in complying with the proposed modifications to the Handschu Guidelines as part of the settlement in the Handschu and Raza litigations.

It will only now begin thinking about keeping all related investigative documents together in one place.

While the prior history of a case and/or its proposed subject(s) is set forth in the Investigative Statement, the Intelligence Bureau will consider if there is a more effective way to trace the full history of an investigation, including other levels of investigation (i.e., checking of leads, Preliminary Inquiries, etc.) which may have occurred related to its underlying facts.

It will also only now start thinking about documenting the written approval process for deploying new informants or extending the use of existing ones.

The Intelligence Bureau will consider the development of best practices for documenting the written approval of the use of human sources in Handschu investigations by the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence, including name, signature, and date.

Even though the NYPD has been running investigations under the modified Handschu Agreement since 2002, it won't be until later this year that it will finally deliver a comprehensive compilation of baseline policies governing terrorism-focused investigations.

As is evidenced by the Inspector General's findings -- and the NYPD's own admissions -- the department has never been interested in accountability. It's far more interested in pretending it's the DEA, FBI, CIA, and NSA all rolled into one local law enforcement office. And it operates with a level of opacity surpassing the federal agencies it aspires to be. The report finds a pattern of noncompliance and the NYPD defends itself by either pointing out that if there's no requirement to do something, it sure as hell isn't going to do it, or nodding thoughtfully and promising to get right on things it should have addressed more than a decade ago.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>nypd-blewhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160827/17531435367Mon, 11 Jan 2016 03:23:00 PSTSettlement In Lawsuit Over NYPD's Surveillance Of Muslims Bringing A Long List Of Reforms To City's PolicingTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160108/08003033278/settlement-lawsuit-over-nypds-surveillance-muslims-bringing-long-list-reforms-to-citys-policing.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160108/08003033278/settlement-lawsuit-over-nypds-surveillance-muslims-bringing-long-list-reforms-to-citys-policing.shtml
The NYPD considers itself to be the finest police force in the nation, if not the world. But its track record says otherwise. It lost a lawsuit over its "stop and frisk" program, thanks to its unconstitutionality and appearance of racial bias. It is currently in the middle of a lawsuit related to illegal summons quotas -- one in which it destroyed documents it was ordered to preserve. And now, it has just lost another lawsuit related to its biased policing.

The NYPD's pervasive surveillance of the city's Muslim population violated civil liberties on a massive scale. Despite being given an incredible amount of leeway to pursue its counter-terrorist activities, the so-called "Demographics Unit" did useless things like pressure informants into making stuff up to justify surveillance efforts and designate entire mosques as terrorist entities. What it didn't do, however, is generate any useful intelligence.

The proposed settlement includes modification of the guidelines along two principal lines: incorporating new safeguards and installing a civilian representative within the NYPD to reinforce all safeguards.

A civilian representative will be a welcome change from the internal "oversight" performed by the NYPD -- which has been pretty much nonexistent. The program was started by an ex-CIA officer who seemingly assumed he could treat US citizens with the same disregard as foreign nationals.

A long list of stipulations could bring about much-needed changes in NYPD counter-terrorist program.

Prohibiting investigations in which race, religion, or ethnicity is a substantial or motivating factor

Requiring articulable and factual information regarding possible unlawful activity before the NYPD can launch a preliminary investigation into political or religious activity

Requiring the NYPD to account for the potential effect of investigative techniques on constitutionally protected activities such as religious worship and political meetings

Limiting the NYPD’s use of undercovers and confidential informants to situations in which the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained in a timely and effective way by less intrusive means

Putting an end to open-ended investigations by imposing presumptive time limits and requiring reviews of ongoing investigations every six months

Installing a civilian representative within the NYPD with the power and obligation to ensure all safeguards are followed and to serve as a check on investigations directed at political and religious activities. The civilian representative must record and report any violations to the police commissioner, who must investigate violations and report back to the civilian representative. If violations are systematic, the civilian representative must report them directly to the judge in the Handschu case.

Removing from the NYPD website the discredited and unscientific “Radicalization in the West” report, which justified discriminatory surveillance, and affirming that the report is not and will not be relied upon to open or prolong NYPD investigations

These reforms aren't set in stone yet. A still-pending class action suit over violations of the NYPD's Handschu Agreement (an agreement that was subverted by the CIA officer heading the Demographics Unit, who used post-9/11 terrorism fears to carve huge holes in the stipulation, which forbade the surveillance of First Amendment-protected activity) must be resolved before the proposed settlement can go into effect. Fortunately, the remaining hearing in that case involves comments from the plaintiffs, rather than an attempt by the city to dial back the proposed reforms.

The NYPD has a chance to salvage its reputation. The problem is, it doesn't see it that way, despite losing major lawsuits over two of its biggest programs. Without a doubt, the next few weeks will see plenty of criticism from the usual sources: District Attorney Cyrus Vance, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton and, because there's apparently no way to shut him up, NYPD union boss Pat Lynch. Any statements will only make these officials look worse as they'll be arguing on behalf of the wholesale violation of civil liberties.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>suing-the-cops-back-into-compliance-with-the-Constitutionhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160108/08003033278Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:11:00 PDTIranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent RadicalizationTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150408/06172830586/iranian-cleric-suggests-west-ban-criminalize-negative-portrayals-muslims-to-prevent-radicalization.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150408/06172830586/iranian-cleric-suggests-west-ban-criminalize-negative-portrayals-muslims-to-prevent-radicalization.shtml
As the nuclear talks between America and Iran continue, perhaps one inevitability is going to be cross-cultural diffusion of a kind. After all, should the deal lead to improved relations, one would expect influence to be peddled by both sides. Since there are very real issues our two nations have to discuss, this should be an overall good thing. But there are some cultural changes that just aren't going to happen.

Take the suggestion from Iranian cleric Ayatollah Salman Safavi, for instance, that Americans combat Islamic extremism by making sure our movies and video games include only favorable representations of his religion lest they cause the very radicalization at the root of the "constantly" negative current portrayals of Muslims and Islam.

"In the Western media be it in films, games or news, Muslims and Islam are constantly associated with terrorism, violence and backwardness, they are constantly portrayed as the "other" to the white European or American and in constant conflict with it," Dr. Safavi tells the Telegraph. "This causes alienation and isolation particularly for young people, who dream of having success in life and being contributing members of society but see their way of life, their beliefs, and what they hold sacred being constantly attacked and degraded. Islamophobia in media be it films or games or news should be considered as promoting and aiding terrorism and also being [a] hate crime."

You can see the cultural differences clashing against each other here. Self-censorship isn't how America does things, after all. Which isn't to say that misrepresentation of the larger Muslim public isn't a real thing, or that action shouldn't be taken by those in the know to combat that portrayal. But those actions must operate within the framework of free and open speech. Take the work of Aasif Mandvi, for instance. The correspondent from The Daily Show has put out a new series called Halal in the Family. The show dissects and highlights anti-Muslim portrayals, using comedy as a vehicle for the discussion. That's how bad or unfair speech is combatted in America, with other, better speech. Asking us to self-censor is a non-starter.

And through real, honest, and open speech, progress can be made. If the Islamic world is being unfairly portrayed, its denizens should feel welcome, if not obligated, to step into the ring of speech and ideas, and put up a fight. They get the same rights as everyone else, after all. Engaging in that way will push the discussion onto a higher platform. It's not like the media keeps its boogeymen around forever. Just ask the Communists. These things have a shelf-life.

...we believe the city should revisit its decision to dismantle the NYPD’s “Muslim Mapping” intelligence program.

The program was designed to provide exactly the kind of intelligence that would have been useful to police in Paris once they identified their three suspects in Wednesday’s terror attack. Namely, where they might go to find shelter or assistance.

And yet... the same thing is happening in other arenas as well. A year ago, both a court and the specially appointed task force set up to review the intelligence community's use of bulk metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act noted that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the bulk metadata collection was ever used to stop terrorist attacks.

And yet... former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden went on cable news on Thursday morning to use the Charlie Hebdo attack as an excuse for why the program was so useful. After spending about four minutes talking about how these kinds of random small attacks are likely to be the new way terrorists attack, he then defends metadata collection:

Let me add another thought here too: You know, I was talking to you guys about 12 months ago, about these massive amounts of metadata that NSA held in storage. That metadata doesn't look all that scary this morning and I wouldn't be surprised if the French services pick up cell phones associated with the attack and ask the Americans, 'where have you seen these phones active globally?'.

Actually, no, that metadata does still seem pretty scary, because it also includes a hell of a lot more than just those responsible for the attack. And, it's not like law enforcement and the intelligence community can't go back to the operators currently responsible and ask them for that data. There's still no reason to believe that the NSA needs to just be sitting on this data all the time. And, of course, it doesn't seem like all that metadata helped prevent any attack, now did it?

Either way, it's kind of sickening to see this kind of opportunist crap, seeking to strip civil liberties and privacy rights from people, at the same time so many people are focusing on the other side of the story, about protecting free speech.

Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;

Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;

Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University;

Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights;

Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country.

This certainly harkens back to the days of spying on Martin Luther King and other human rights activists -- the kind of thing that was supposed to have stopped decades ago. In fact, the driving reason for setting up the FISA Court was to prevent this kind of thing. As Greenwald's report notes, these individuals were on a list of folks who the DOJ had convinced the FISA Court that there was "probable cause" were engaged in terrorism.

The individuals appear on an NSA spreadsheet in the Snowden archives called “FISA recap”—short for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the Justice Department must convince a judge with the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there is probable cause to believe that American targets are not only agents of an international terrorist organization or other foreign power, but also “are or may be” engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The authorizations must be renewed by the court, usually every 90 days for U.S. citizens.

The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Many of the email addresses on the list appear to belong to foreigners whom the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

But a three-month investigation by The Intercept—including interviews with more than a dozen current and former federal law enforcement officials involved in the FISA process—reveals that in practice, the system for authorizing NSA surveillance affords the government wide latitude in spying on U.S. citizens.

Reading through the report, it becomes quite clear that the main reason these individuals on the list is solely because they're Muslim. Of every lawyer who has helped represent defendants in terrorism-related cases, the only one on this list just happens to be Muslim. As the article reminds us, a few years back, Spencer Ackerman did some great reporting, revealing how the FBI was being trained to believe all Muslims were "violent" and "radical" and the impact of that ridiculous training appears to be clear in what this latest report finds. Perhaps the most chilling example of this anti-Muslim attitude is found in a training document revealed in this new report, showing intelligence community members how to "identify" targets for the FISA court. The "placeholder" name says it all:

Later in the report, the government tries to deny that there was a FISA Court order concerning at least one of the individuals listed above, even though they were in the spreadsheet. But that level of confusion only suggests that the process is even more of a mess. Whether or not this complied with the law is a distraction. The law shouldn't allow this kind of thing.

A former Justice Department official involved in FISA policy in the Obama Administration says the process contains too many internal checks and balances to serve as a rubber stamp on surveillance of Americans. But the former official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about FISA matters, acknowledges that there are significant problems with the process. Having no one present in court to contest the secret allegations can be an invitation to overreach. “There are serious weaknesses,” the former official says. “The lack of transparency and adversarial process—that’s a problem.”

Indeed, the government’s ability to monitor such high-profile Muslim-Americans—with or without warrants—suggests that the most alarming and invasive aspects of the NSA’s surveillance occur not because the agency breaks the law, but because it is able to exploit the law’s permissive contours. “The scandal is what Congress has made legal,” says Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU deputy legal director. “The claim that the intelligence agencies are complying with the laws is just a distraction from more urgent questions relating to the breadth of the laws themselves.”

Much of the rest of the story involves a detailed look at the men listed above, all of which is worth reading, demonstrating just how ridiculous it was to be spying on their communications. The video of Faisal Gill is really worth watching:

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>because of course they didhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140709/05473827820Wed, 7 May 2014 03:22:07 PDTHow The US Gov't Destroyed The Lives Of A Muslim American Man's Entire Family After He Refused To Become An InformantMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140501/08043127088/how-us-govt-destroyed-lives-muslim-american-mans-entire-family-after-he-refused-to-become-informant.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140501/08043127088/how-us-govt-destroyed-lives-muslim-american-mans-entire-family-after-he-refused-to-become-informant.shtmlrefusing to become informants. Some of the stories were ridiculous, displaying just how aggressive and coercive the FBI has been in trying to force totally innocent people into becoming informants, even when they lack any actual connection to any terrorists or terrorist organizations. But those disgusting stories pale in comparison to a story reported by Nick Baumann at Mother Jones, in which it becomes quite clear that the US government wrecked the lives of multiple family members (mostly US citizens) after one American muslim man refused to become an informant.

You should read the full story of how it all came about, but through a series of events, the FBI came into contact with Naji Mansour, after his (perhaps naive) abundant display of hospitality resulted in two men associated with terror staying in his mother's house in Nairobi. His mother, an American woman from Rhode Island, worked for the US government (as a part of USAID). Eventually, the FBI appears to have realized that Naji had no real connection to the two men, but then they focused on doing everything possible to force him to become an informant. And when he refused, they basically set about to wreck his life, and then his family's lives. After refusing to become an informant, the family suddenly found it difficult to travel:

...the Mansour family headed to the Nairobi airport to fly to Uganda for a visit with Naji's ex-wife and their children. When Naji handed his passport to a security officer, she glanced at her computer screen, stared at him, and asked, "What did you do?" Kenyan security officers detained the family for several hours, releasing them just before their flight took off.

When the family returned five days later, Kenyan airport police questioned Naji again. "The deputy immigration officer said, 'We have nothing wrong with you, but we have a directive not to let you in,'" Naji recalled. Soon, Fogarty and Jones showed up at the airport. The FBI agent reiterated the US government's desire that Naji become an informant. Naji once again declined.

Another time, his mother stopped by the US Embassy in Kenya to add more pages to her passport -- only to have her passport seized. She was told it would only be returned if she met with the FBI agent who had been pushing to turn Naji into an informant. He asked her where Naji had moved to, because they had apparently lost track of him. The very next day, Naji, who had moved to Sudan, and his wife found themselves detained by Sudanese law enforcement:

The next morning, June 30, Naji and Nasreen—who had come to visit her husband in Juba while Sandra was in Nairobi looking after their children—were about to go out for breakfast when they noticed a man peering through the window. Naji opened the door to find two men in suits, sweating in the heat, with guns on their hips. "One of them looked like African James Bond," Naji told me. "And I say, 'Yes, hello?' And they're like, 'Naji Mansour?' and I'm like, 'Yes.' And they just came in." The agents of the South Sudan Security Bureau asked Naji to bring Nasreen out, and then they took the couple's phones and laptops and hustled them into separate unmarked cars.

His wife was detained for over a week -- never charged with anything and then finally released. Naji was held for over a month. In the middle of his detention, a US State Department official suddenly showed up and told him he should meet with the same FBI agent, Mike Jones, who had been trying to recruit him as an informant. When Naji agreed, Jones immediately walked in with another FBI agent. They demanded some "useful info" to help him get released. He tried to come up with any information he could think of, but the agents told him it was not enough, and then said "All right, Naji, good luck... I hope everything works out for you, buddy" and left.

After a month he was released. No explanation, no charges. A few months later, Jones asked to meet again, and Naji said he wanted to talk by phone first, leading to some calls that Naji recorded, in which Jones appears to directly threaten Naji's family while denying having anything to do with his detention.

There's a lot in there (you can read the transcript at the link above), but it becomes clear that they're dragging his mother into this towards the end of the conversations:

Mike Jones [FBI]: As I said, Naji, you know, there's scrutiny on you, and that's not going to go away. There's scrutiny on your mom, she's a contractor with the embassy, that's not going to go away unless we sit down and get down to business. You don't want to come into the embassy, for good– you say for good reason, but meanwhile your mom is employed at the US consulate. So for you to say as an American, "I don't want to go into the embassy to meet with you, and there's a good reason for that." It's just, to us, it should have been done there. We did you a favor by agreeing to do it outside of the embassy, here, in this city. So, you know, Naji, there's really just not more I can say right now.

Naji Mansour: I'm even trying to decipher what you're trying to say right now.

MJ: What I'm trying to say is, you don't want to come into the embassy to do it. Fine. You know, I- we said we'd do it outside of the embassy. This isn't a, meeting hasn't been a priority to you. In fact, you haven't wanted to sit with us, since we've talked, since I've been back in country. Okay. You say you want to get things resolved. I say there's scrutiny on you. There's scrutiny on your mom. She's employed by the consulate, and yet you don't want, or she's employed at the consulate, through a contractor, and you're saying you don't want to come to the embassy, and there's a good reason for that. So I said meet us.

NM: Exactly. My position hasn’t changed. My position hasn't changed. The scrutiny on my mother has nothing to do with anything, unless you you're making a threat. And currently I told you the situation here, [Mike], that in this country I'm kind of like, have you heard of the expression that beggars are not choosers? I'm on contract. I'm on contract, so I'm not giving you any illegitimate excuse. While you're here, I've bent over backwards. And I really don't like your tone. I don't like your tone, [Mike]. I don't like your tone.

MJ: Naji–

NM: You have scrutiny on me for what? What do you have on me? You have nothing on me. I've done nothing. You cannot tell me…

MJ: Then let's sit down and talk about it.

Later in the call, Jones hands the phone over to another FBI agent (who also showed up in the Sudanese prison earlier), Peter Stone (a pseudonym), and Stone is much more direct about the threat:

PS: A series of events is going to be put into motion. And once you put it into motion, and honestly I, I'm out of it. I honestly do not care. I'm going home, you know I got a vacation to plan, I got this [inaudible] other kinda stuff, my life goes on. Yours might change. And it's not going, it might not be necessarily to your liking. But, this is what's going on, but the whole dodging, you're telling, oh, no, this time, that time, all that kind of stuff, frankly I don't believe it. And again, I really don't care. I'm getting ready to pack my bags and go. But when I go, when [Mike] goes, you know, that door closed on ya. A new chapter will open up for ya, and it's going to be a new chapter of your life, but you’re going to remember that this was the day where I could walked through that door, and ya didn't. But that's all I'm going to say, and I'm going to give you back to [Mike], and…

NM: No wait, hold up [Peter], you can't just…

PS: ...and you guys can say nah nah nah nah…

[crosstalk]

NM: That's a blatant threat, and you're going to put in your report that I, how are you? [crosstalk] That I don’t have an excuse to come, when I'm trying to frickin accommodate.

PS: Dude, dude, dude, no let me tell ya, I was not born yesterday. I haven't been doing this job since yesterday, okay? I know when somebody is yanking my chain. Okay? And I'm seeing...

NM: This ain't the states! This ain't the states!

PS: ... a major chain yank. Okay, this is not the first time, believe me. I've dealt with guys who've done that, and all that kind of stuff, and I've just learned, you know I've got a callus built up. I walk away. And then, whatever happens then, honestly, all I know is I can sleep at night knowing that every opportunity was given, you know, the guy decided not. I've helped people out, on the opposite side, people have been helped out tremendously, and that's something that I'm very proud of. People that were in deep shit, who are no longer in shit, and are living a good live, because I was there for them, and they took that door, they took the opportunity and walked through that door, man. And seriously, honestly, it's the same thing that's available to you. But again, you will remember this day, and you're gonna say, "Shit, I shoulda talked to these guys. And I shouldn't have been doing all excuses." If you didn't have any business going on today, or any kind of a things like that, you're gonna find how minuscule and worthless it was compared to this fork in the road, that you're about to take.

NM: What are you talking about? No, why don’t you come out and say it? Why'n't you come out and say what fork in the road are you talking about?

PS: Dude, I honestly don't care. I'm getting out of here. I don't care. Okay? And, you know, when I tell somebody, hey, you know what, if you cross the street without looking you're gonna get run over, that's not a threat. You know, that's advice. [crosstalk] You're about to cross the street without looking both ways...

NM: No.

PS: And I'm telling you, you know what You might get hit by a car—that is not a threat. That is a solid piece of advice. But you don't want to take it. But seriously I'm done, here's [Mike].

It's not too surprising (though no less disgusting) to see what happened next:

Four days later, on November 17, a State Department security officer visited the offices of Management Systems International in Juba. Sandra was fired the same day—less than a week after the company had renewed her contract for another year. She was told her position had been eliminated, but MSI posted the same job a month later. Stefanie Frease, one of Sandra's supervisors, told me the dismissal came at the behest of the US government.

"We all thought she was blackballed," said Inez Andrews, a former foreign-service officer working in the US compound in Juba at the time. "It's awful she hasn't been able to clear this up, that she's being held hostage to a system that was trying to extract information."

Later, his mother was blocked from returning to her own home in Nairobi, and told by an immigration official that it was because of the US government: "If the Americans don't want you here, you ain't coming in." And, then, of course, the US went after other members of Naji's family, including his siblings who are in the US military.

Other members of Naji's family have been targeted, too. In 2011, Naji's sister, Tahani, was detained at the Nairobi airport for three days. "I've heard, 'It's your people'"—that the US is behind her family's troubles with customs officials—"more times than I can count," she told me. "I go to airports now and there's this constant sense of trepidation. Am I gonna make it? Am I gonna get locked up again?"

"As a family we have always been mobile and traveling our whole lives, and as a result completely took it for granted," she told me. "The removal of the liberty to travel was crippling."

One of Naji's brothers says he is frequently questioned about Naji when he crosses an international border. The other, a Marine veteran based in Virginia, was visited by members of the Navy's criminal investigative service, who grilled him about Naji. The FBI even interviewed Naji's uncle and aging grandmother in Rhode Island in 2009.

"They didn't get to me, so they had to target my family," says Naji.

The story is horrific, but chillingly consistent with similar stories that we've heard about the way the FBI operates. Yes, it's important for the FBI to try to find out information about possible terrorists, but they seem to have no concern at all for wrecking the lives of totally innocent people in their pursuit of anyone. These are the kinds of activities that you hear about from authoritarian police states. It's the kind of thing that we were always taught the US doesn't do. Whether or not it was always a lie, it's clearly not the case today.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>disgustinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140501/08043127088Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:05:29 PDTFormer FBI Agent: NYPD's Muslim-Spying Demographics Unit Was Almost Completely UselessTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140423/10254627006/former-fbi-agent-nypds-muslim-spying-demographics-unit-was-almost-completely-useless.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140423/10254627006/former-fbi-agent-nypds-muslim-spying-demographics-unit-was-almost-completely-useless.shtml
Certain demographics are desirable. 18-34? Taste-makers and early adopters. 35-49? Money. Muslim and New York City resident? Being a member of this group meant (until recently) having First Amendment-protected activities being closely scrutinized by the NYPD's now-defunct "Demographics Unit."

This special unit was recently disbanded, roughly a decade after it should have been, thanks to a new mayor and a new police commissioner. The unit was put together by a former CIA officer who used the post-9/11 attack climate to push for expansive surveillance of the city's Muslim population, including designating entire mosques as terrorist-related entities. Despite all the extra attention being paid to Muslims, not a single useful investigation resulted from this unit's work.

The surveillance being done by this unit so pervasively subverted civil liberties protections that not even the CIA could access the NYPD's files without breaking its internal rules. The same goes for the FBI, which has long partnered with the NYPD in its counter-terrorism efforts. Don Borelli, a former FBI agent, has written a piece for the New York Daily News, detailing why police commissioner Bill Bratton was right to disband the Demographics Unit.

Together, we were able to stop many threats — and save many lives — including a serious plot against the subways from Najibullah Zazi, an ethnic Afghan who grew up in Queens and went on to become an Al Qaeda operative.

Interestingly enough, the NYPD demographics unit had detailed files on Zazi's neighborhood in Flushing during the period in which he was becoming radicalized. It kept files on businesses and visited coffee shops believed to be hangouts for potential terrorists. The unit even visited the travel agency where Zazi bought his ticket to travel to Afghanistan for terrorism training.

So why wasn't Zazi identified until he was driving to New York from Denver to blow up the subway? Because the program was ineffective. The mission of the demographics unit was to spot the terrorists in the haystack, but again and again it failed to do so.

All haystack, no needle, like so many other surveillance programs. The unit overwhelmed itself in useless data, keeping it from finding what it needed when it mattered most. These data swamps built by investigative agencies have proven to be more dangerous than old-fashioned police work.

During my time with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, I read many reports derived from investigations conducted by the NYPD Intelligence Division, which may well have relied on the demographics unit's work. I was presented with many interesting facts about where people were attending Friday prayers and who belonged to various Muslim student associations.

But rarely did I learn anything I didn't already know through traditional investigations, much less anything that would have led me to open a terrorism investigation.

Adding to the mess here is the NYPD's twisted relationship with the FBI. While it clearly enjoys access to G-men and their tools, former police chief Ray Kelly often made it clear that his officers did superior work and that the FBI's production of information was too slow to be useful. Of course, FBI agents have said the same thing about the NYPD, particularly in the information department, where the sharing was usually a one-way street that flowed out of the FBI and into the NYPD's hands.

Beyond the antagonistic relationship is the Demographic Unit itself -- its own worst enemy. The former CIA officer who had a local judge rewrite guidelines to give the NYPD unprecedented permission for pervasive surveillance also managed to ensure that most info flowing back upstream to the FBI ended up being routed directly into the trash can.

Moreover, I wound up shredding some of these reports because they had no investigative value and, in my opinion, did not belong in any FBI file because they solely reported on what was First Amendment-protected activity.

Much like other failures to stop terrorist activity, the problems here were communication (too little) and information (too much). As Borelli notes, in his experience, it's been more useful to build trust than to endlessly spy, something the NYPD really hasn't made much effort to foster over the years. But its failure to do so means it has buried itself in data and alienated those who could bring an inside perspective. A decade's worth of spying resulted in nothing but violated rights.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>holds-several-'most-rights-violated'-trophies,-howeverhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140423/10254627006Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:00:30 PDTOver 120 Rights And Religious Groups Join ACLU In Call For DOJ To Investigate NYPD's Surveillance Of MuslimsTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/14382125007/over-120-rights-religious-groups-join-aclu-call-doj-to-investigate-nypds-surveillance-muslims.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/14382125007/over-120-rights-religious-groups-join-aclu-call-doj-to-investigate-nypds-surveillance-muslims.shtml
Over the last few years, the NYPD's intrusive surveillance of the city's Muslim population has raised many concerns about civil liberty violations while simultaneously failing to turn up much in the way of terrorist plots.

The undersigned civil rights, faith, community, and advocacy groups request that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice commence a prompt investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 into the New York City Police Department’s (“NYPD”) discriminatory surveillance of American Muslim communities.

As shown by the NYPD’s own documents, for over a decade, the Department has engaged in unlawful religious profiling and suspicionless surveillance of Muslims in New York City (and beyond). This surveillance is based on the false and unconstitutional premise, reflected in the NYPD’s published “radicalization” theory, that Muslim religious belief, practices, and community engagement are grounds for law enforcement scrutiny. That is a premise rooted in ignorance and bias: it is wrong and unfairly stigmatizes Muslims, who are a law-abiding, diverse, and integral part of our nation and New York City. Unsurprisingly, the NYPD’s surveillance program has had far-reaching, deeply negative effects on Muslims’ constitutional rights by chilling speech and religious practice and harming religious goals and missions. It has frayed the social fabric of Muslim communities by breeding anxiety, distrust, and fear. The NYPD’s biased policing practices hurt not only Muslims, but all communities who rightfully expect that law enforcement will serve and protect America’s diverse population equally, without discrimination.

Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 § 210401, the United States Attorney General is authorized to conduct investigations concerning “a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a)...

As we've seen previously, the NYPD has placed blanket surveillance on entire mosques, justifying it with guidelines weakened by a former CIA officer who exploited post-9/11 paranoia to broadly expand the department's surveillance powers and eliminate built-in protection of civil liberties. This surveillance continues to this day despite an NYPD official admitting these programs have yet to generate a single useful lead or investigation.

The ACLU has drawn support across a variety of religious groups, many of which recognize that while the NYPD may be focused on Muslims now, any other religious (or political, activist, etc.) group could be subject to the same intrusive surveillance if a future attack brings with it guilt by association.

If the DOJ follows through, this will be the second time in recent months that it has weighed in on the NYPD's questionable tactics. Back in June, Attorney General Eric Holder filed a brief recommending that if Judge Scheindlin found the department's stop-and-frisk program to be unconstitutional, independent oversight should be appointed to keep the department in line. Sheindlin did find elements of the program unconstitutional and one of the remedies was, indeed, independent oversight.

As was pointed out then, the DOJ's reputation may be terrible, but one of the few areas in which it has been "aggressive and commendable" is its handling of civil rights violations by police departments. Hopefully, this will result in more of the same.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>pushing-backhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131024/14382125007Fri, 4 Oct 2013 17:30:00 PDTRecent Revelations Prompt Motion To Block NYPD's Surveillance Of MuslimsTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131003/13395524744/recent-revelations-prompt-motion-to-block-nypds-surveillance-muslims.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131003/13395524744/recent-revelations-prompt-motion-to-block-nypds-surveillance-muslims.shtml
A recent investigative report on the NYPD's surveillance of mosques has led to a possible revisiting of the Handschu Agreement by the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit filed against the city seeking to bar further surveillance of Muslims in New York City.

According to the 1985 ruling, the Handschu Agreement limited indiscriminate surveillance of purely political activity. If such surveillance was to take place, it first had to be approved by the three-member Handschu Authority and performed only by the specially-designated Public Security Section, a division of NYPD Intelligence. It also prohibited the videotaping or photographing of large public gatherings when there was no indication of criminal activity and forbade the sharing of information with outside agencies unless they agreed to be bound by the limitations of the Agreement.

The police measures directed at Muslims violate the Handschu decree "because they're not rooted in the fact that there's a criminal predicate," said plaintiff attorney Paul Chevigny. "They're rooted in the fact that the subjects are Muslims."

It was exactly as it looked: Muslims being placed under surveillance simply because they attended certain mosques -- mosques the NYPD had declared to be "terrorist organizations."

The city has countered by claiming that it closely observes the Handschu guidelines when making decisions about how to fight terror. A city lawyer, Peter Farrell, told the judge on Tuesday that the department launches investigations based on evidence of legitimate threats, not on religion.

"It's undeniable that New York City remains at the center of the threat by Islamists who have been radicalized to violence," he said.

[T]he activities that [CIA liaison Larry] Sanchez and [former senior CIA officer David] Cohen were proposing would not have been permitted under the Handschu guidelines. So, on September 12, 2002, Cohen filed a 23-page document in federal court asking a judge to throw out the guidelines and give his officers more leeway.

Cohen insisted that the world had changed since Al Qaeda attacked America, and the NYPD needed to change with it. “These changes were not envisioned when the Handschu guidelines were agreed upon,” he wrote, “and their continuation dangerously limits the ability of the NYPD to protect the people it is sworn to serve.”

The severely watered-down Handschu guidelines were approved by Judge Charles Haight. The name remained unchanged and most New Yorkers were unaware that hardly any limitations remained tied to the Agreement.

After securing this expanded definition (which also thoroughly abused the word "related"), the Demographics Group proceeded to declare entire mosques as "terrorist organizations" and began constant surveillance of their members. And, contrary to what the city's lawyer declared, it has yet to be proven by the NYPD or anyone else that New York is the "center of the threat by Islamists." The NYPD has spent millions of dollars and thousands of manhours surveilling and investigating Muslims and has turned up exactly zero useful leads.

When the plaintiffs filed this case, they had no idea the Handschu guidelines had been so thoroughly eviscerated. Armed with this new knowledge, the plaintiffs have asked the city to turn over so-called "investigative statements" related to these surveillance operations. The city won't even meet them halfway, offering only to turn over a "handful" for the plaintiffs' lawyers to view without making them part of the public record.

Technically, the city is correct: the NYPD is following the guidelines, as they have been altered, not as they were originally written.

The presiding judge says he will rule at a later date. However, one key factor is problematic. The presiding judge is Charles Haight, the same judge who agreed to relax those rules for the NYPD back in 2002. When he says something like this, it's hard to know how to take it.

"I've come to think of this case as a volcano that's asleep most of the time ... but every now and then blows up," U.S. District Judge Charles Haight said at the start of a hearing in federal court in Manhattan.

This "volcano" is at least partially of his own making. Haight knows how few restrictions remain under those guidelines. The NYPD can "closely observe" the relaxed Handschu guidelines and still place entire mosques under surveillance. The protections remaining are so weak and the scope of what is deemed "terrorist-related" so broad that even the CIA itself is unable to use the information collected by the Demographics Unit because doing so means violating CIA policies regarding domestic surveillance.

But it appears (although details are incredibly light) that Haight may revisit his own decision relaxing those guidelines. His upcoming ruling will determine whether the near-useless offer the city's lawyer made will be sufficient or if the city will need to cough up what's been requested: investigative statements related to "any operation targeting Muslims." Haight will also make the call as to whether the documents will remain "off the record."

The NYPD has never been very responsive when asked to turn over information, but considering this order may come from a federal judge, rather than a member of the public, the response time might be a little quicker. As for the plaintiffs, it would seem they drew possibly the least sympathetic judge to hear this case. But who knows, maybe Haight's had a change of heart over the years. Many rash legislative and legal decisions were made shortly after the 9/11 attacks and there have been more than a few who have expressed regret for their decisions or dismay at the continual expansion of already-broad policies. Haight might be one of the ones who regrets his decision. Fortunately, he's still in a position to make some changes.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>this-will-all-seem-eerily-familiar-to-the-presiding-judgehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131003/13395524744Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:33:52 PDTNYPD Spent Years Spying On Muslims, Generated Exactly Zero LeadsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtmlmanufactured terrorist plots, in which the FBI creates its own terrorist plot to arrest anyone who can be coaxed into going along for the ride, even if they had no interest or ability to push the plot forward on their own. In that case, it was even more ridiculous, because they couldn't even find anyone willing to go along with the plot -- and the main "suspect" actually alerted the FBI to the informant who was trying to coax him into taking part in a plot (which didn't stop him from being arrested, even if the case was eventually dropped).

Of course, the FBI is not alone in its incredibly ham-fisted anti-terrorism efforts in which the focus seems to be much more about someone's religious leanings, rather than any actual interest in creating terror. The NY Police Department got plenty of attention for deciding to build their own local versions of the FBI and CIA to try to catch terrorists. That link describes the NYPD as a sort of new "elite" intelligence agency, hiring people out of other intelligence agencies and then placing agents around the globe to try to beat the FBI and CIA at their own game.

Back at home, apparently this included following on the FBI's tactic of assuming that "brown skin = terrorist." As such, they've spent the past few years spying on "Muslim neighbrhoods" throughout New York (with help from the CIA), sending undercover agents and informants into Muslim groups and organizations:

The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program, built with help from the CIA, which assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.

Police hoped the Demographics Unit would serve as an early warning system for terrorism. And if police ever got a tip about, say, an Afghan terrorist in the city, they'd know where he was likely to rent a room, buy groceries and watch sports.

I know this is a crazy thought, but perhaps violating the privacy of tons of people just because of the color of their skin or their religion, isn't the best (or even "a") way to stop terrorists.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>security theaterhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120821/09094820113Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:23:31 PDTFBI-Created 'Terrorist Plot' Fails To Produce A Single Terrorist -- But Does Plenty Of Damage To Individual LibertiesTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtmlevery terrorist plan it has conceived and put in motion itself (a few of which have been covered here), details of an unintentionally hilarious (and particularly horrendous) "terrorist plot" conjured up back in 2006 have emerged, thanks to an NPR expose and a lawsuit filed against the FBI by some of the unwilling participants.

Dubbed "Operation Flex" in deference to its main participant, this 2006 FBI project attempted to uncover a terrorist cell in a group of Orange County Muslims, even if it had to invent that cell itself. The FBI's man on the inside was Craig Montielh, who likely cut an incongruous figure at the mosque at 6'2", 260 lbs... and white. A bodybuilder with a sketchy past, Montielh was instructed to make contact with the supposed jihadists during his frequent visits to an Irvine gym where many of the Muslim men worked out.

To Montielh's credit, he sunk himself into the role. His FBI contacts suspected his new friends might be a terrorist cell because, well, they were four, unmarried Egyptian men living under one roof. But his enthusiasm for the job was constantly thwarted by his "targets," who preferred playing FIFA Soccer on the Xbox to discussing terrorist plots.

At first, they treated Montielh (who was going by the name "Farouk") as one of them, a new acolyte in need of guidance. But as time went on and Montielh became desperate to show results, his desire to turn idle revolutionary chat into action began to worry his companions. Montielh's first move was to amp up his personal relationship with Allah.

Months passed. People noticed that Craig was acting more devout. He began reciting prayers aloud, dressing in traditional robes, and showing up so early for 5:00 AM prayers that he'd get there before the person who unlocked the mosque every morning. They also noticed something else.

Yassir Abdel Rahim - Slowly and surely enough, during some times when we were having coffee, came the question of jihad.

Craig talked to his Arabic teacher, Mohammad Elsisy, about his new obsession too.

Mohammad Elsisy - He invited me once to lunch, yes. And he focused the topic in the lunch about jihad. And I keep turning his attention into the essence of Islam. And he keeps, again, bringing it back to jihad. And he kept asking about jihad over and over and over. And I told him, Farouk, get over it, get over it, get over it.

With Montielh trying and failing repeatedly to get these California Muslims to warm up to his own personal jihad, the FBI decided it was time for phase two. Montielh was told to start talking up an actual terrorist plot to blow up buildings in Southern California. After Montielh aggressively broached the subject to his friends during a car ride, they decided to do what anyone would have done in that situation:

After they parted ways with Craig, Mohammad and Niazi talked about what had just happened. They decided they had to do something, so they did what all Americans are supposed to do in this situation, what law enforcement officials tell us we should do when someone says he has access to weapons and wants to use them. They reported Craig to the FBI as a potential terrorist.

Mohammed and Niazi had Hussam Ayloush, the director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, make the call for them. He spoke to Steve Tidwell, the head of the FBI's California branch. Tidwell didn't even ask for a name or last known address of this white Muslim terrorist and assured Hussam that the FBI would take it from here. And the FBI did, launching what, for all intents and purposes, looked like an actual terrorist investigation.

But instead of wholeheartedly pursuing its own man, the FBI agents were more interested in repeatedly questioning everyone Montielh had talked to. They honed in on Niazi, whose sister was married to Amin al-Haq, designated as a terrorist by the US government. The FBI agents used this as leverage in an attempt to get Niazi to become a paid informant and go to work for them in Afghanistan. When he refused, the FBI had him arrested for "immigration fraud and making false statements."

But what's interesting about Niazi's arrest is what he wasn't charged with. He wasn't charged with associating with terrorists himself. He wasn't charged with plotting an attack. And he wasn't charged for anything he'd ever said to Craig over the course of months of recorded conversations.

At Niazi's trial, Agent Thomas Ropel repeatedly told the prosecutor that Niazi had instigated the conversations related to the so-called "terrorist plot." This isn't the way Montielh (or his tapes) remembers it:

Sam Black - Did Niazi ever instigate this kind of conversation with you?

Craig Montielh - No. No, I did. Every time.

Despite not being charged with anything more serious than immigration fraud and "making false statements," Niazi was placed under house arrest for more than a year. He represents all of the arrests or indictments made as a result of Operation Flex. And even this didn't stick. The US government filed a motion to dismiss all charges against Niazi.

Another home-built terrorist operation and not even a single conviction to show for it. In fact, the FBI is arguably worse off now than if it had never begun the investigation. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has brought a lawsuit against FBI over Operation Flex, claiming the investigation violated their First Amendment rights by targeting them for their religious beliefs, as well as subjecting them to searches and monitoring without a warrant. The botched operation has also done damage to the Muslim community in California:

Operation Flex didn't just make people suspicious of law enforcement. It made them suspicious of each other. So many people I talked to say they stay away from new converts now. They have a hard time believing people are who they say they are. Here's Ayman, the Egyptian guy who first befriended Craig.

Ayman - Really, what they did is they made everybody in the mosque not trust everybody. Nobody would talk about it, but nobody-- you would see some weird looks, you know what I mean? People are looking at each other weird. I don't know. Maybe I was sensitive, but I can tell that the way they looked at me was just different.

In addition to making themselves look like a bunch of government agents creating their own busywork to stay employed, the FBI has taken yet another serious hit to its credibility. Early on in the transcript, it's noted that Stephen Tidwell (head of the FBI in Los Angeles) made an earlier approach via a town meeting at the Islamic Center of Irvine. He assured everyone attending that the FBI was not monitoring the mosque and that they would be informed if anyone from the FBI was planning to visit. That was June 5, 2006. Operation Flex began roughly two months later.

Of about 500 terrorism cases since 9/11, about 50 defendants have been involved in cases where the informant came up with the idea and provided all of the means.

Finally, the worst, but least surprising, news of all: in an update to the story, NPR points out that US District Judge Cormac Carney has dismissed the lawsuit brought by CAIR, stating that allowing the the suit to proceed would "significantly compromise national security."

Carney's self-serving statement casts him (and a large part of the government's various secretive services) as an ancient Greek hero:

In struggling with this conflict, the Court is reminded of the classic dilemma of Odysseus, who faced the challenge of navigating his ship through a dangerous passage, flanked by a voracious six-headed monster, on the one side, and a deadly whirlpool, on the other. Odysseus opted to pass by the monster and risk a few of his individual sailors, rather than hazard the loss of his entire ship to the sucking whirlpool. Similarly, the proper application of the state secrets privilege may unfortunately mean the sacrifice of individual liberties for the sake of national security.

I know the Greeks laid the foundation for modern democracy, but perhaps we shouldn't base our decisions on their epic tragedies.